Thank you, Mike — what a wonderful review! I’m so glad the Reliquary brought you back to Italy, and that playing it was such a satisfying experience for you. It certainly was for me while writing it (especially since it’s my first work)! My intention was exactly to share the fascinating past of this important, though little-known, archaeological site and to immerse the player in the history of medieval Italy. Thanks again!
3 Likes
Moon Logic, by Lancelot/Onno Brouwer
Well well well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions. A couple of years ago, I reviewed the author’s debut game, One King to Loot Them All, and at the close of a positive writeup I noted in passing that I prefer prose in the sword-and-sorcery genre to be “a little zestier” than what was on offer. So I can’t help but feel that one bit of Moon Logic – a purposefully-painful game originally destined for the Really Bad IF Jam before it broke scope and containment – is singling out me in particular. You see, this is a Zork pastiche one of whose main features is that alongside the main game window, there’s a frame where two voices on the player’s shoulder (Roger and Wilco, natch) comment on the action, crack dumb jokes, and gurn and grin in the most distracting manner as they refuse. to. shut. up. Come back, One King, all is forgiven!
In fairness, while the commentary is often (intentionally) painful, it’s also incredibly helpful, typically spelling out the next steps you need to take. This is perhaps a bit intrusive, but I found it a godsend given the game’s other gimmick: in a parody of intrusive “AI” assistance functions, this by-the-numbers Zork parody doesn’t use a parser interface, but rather a one-click choice-based one where you select the action, and the game infers the appropriate noun based on that. Of course “appropriate” is a lie, as the rules undergirding all this guarantee that the obviously useful action will only happen at the end (if at all). You can’t easily go a particular direction – opening and closing doors will determine where you wind up when you blindly stab the “go” button. Similarly, if you need to drop an item to progress, it’s going to be the last thing to go after you start pounding “drop” (and then you’ll have to press “take” a bunch of times again to retrieve all your junk). Oh, and you don’t get access to all the actions at once; using a verb will usually remove it from the screen, so you need to add some pointless actions in the middle to get it back.
As a result, knowing what you’re supposed to be doing makes sense – the challenge is actually the how. This does mean that you can largely blow past the moon-logic (drink!) that governs many of the puzzles – it doesn’t really matter why eating guano gives you super strength, you’re just told that it does, so good luck wrestling with the sack to try to get it out of its hiding place. And the game does a good job of mixing things up; just as I was feeling like I’d gotten the hang of the interface, some new annoying challenge would be thrown my way, usually with a clever gag (and groaningly-painful commentary from Roger and Wilco) accompanying it. These are all pretty much drawn from Zork, but with fun twists – I especially enjoyed how the joke around taking the giant pile of leaves, as well as how it’s redeployed given its role in many players’ approach to the maze of twisty little passages, all alike (though of course implementing the solution was laborious in the extreme).
Make no mistake, the humor here is very broad – here’s a representative sample:
[Wilco] Yes! We’ve got ourselves a lunch and a… wait, what happened to the clove of garlic?
[Roger] Maybe the vampire bat overcame its aversion to garlic and ate it?
[Wilco] Leaving a bat dropping in return. You may have a point there.
But it wouldn’t fit the brief of making Bad IF to have actually good jokes (albeit in fairness the giant pile of treasure you loot at the end did legitimately make me giggle a few times). Similarly, complaining that the interface is terrible would miss the point: yeah, it’s frustrating, but working out the rules governing its behavior isn’t too complex, and is reasonably satisfying. I can’t exactly recommend Moon Logic, unless you liked when a big kid would make you play the “stop hitting yourself” game on the playground. But if you’re in the mood for such a thing, you could do a lot worse. Just please, no need for zestiness next time.
6 Likes
Clickbait, by Reilly Olson
If you were to make a checklist of mistakes first-time parser authors often make, Clickbait would run afoul of a bunch of them. The first puzzle announces its solution in an annoying every-turn rule that spams you with the exact same text every time you do anything, even taking inventory; dialogue uses the ASK X ABOUT Y syntax, with the available topics explicitly listed, but if you mistype or shorten them slightly (e.g. asking about “picture” rather than “his picture”) the command won’t be accepted; there’s a lot of unimplemented scenery, and device-fiddling puzzles made frustrating by the fact that you can’t just type TURN ON BLUE to push the blue button, because you’ll get asked to disambiguate between the button and a blue keycard you’re carrying (plus that won’t work because despite the button’s description noting whether it’s switched on or switched off, TURN ON/OFF actually don’t work and you need to PUSH the button instead); and a couple of puzzles even employ the dreaded USE X ON Y syntax.
But! The good news is that definitionally, an author can only be a first-timer once – and most of these irritants are pretty easy to fix for subsequent games. And the better news about Clickbait, specifically, is that it’s got a lot of high points that make me look forward to playing a second and third and fourth game by the author. The conceit here is fun: an urban-exploration photography contest prompts you to check out a long-sealed-off subway station, and when the door accidentally locks behind you, you need to find your way out while still making time for some winning snaps along the way. Most of what you get up to is relatively standard stuff – again, there are keycards, plus a rope, a lost toy you need to retrieve for a little girl – but the generally modest difficulty and pleasant, pacey writing keeps things zippy. Similarly, the characters are out of central casting but are nonetheless appealing: there’s a cop too lazy to be any help, a seemingly-incoherent derelict who gives you a vital clue, the aforementioned moppet who’s lost her bunny.
Alongside the sometimes-zany puzzles, the station is actually sketched out in a reasonably grounded way, with realistic detritus, graffiti, and other points of interest that make it feel like more than just an artificial funhouse to poke around in. And while the game isn’t laugh-out-loud funny, more than a few moments raised a smile, none more so than the reason the station was abandoned in the first place (I’m not talking about the “it was all an experiment thing”, I can take or leave that twist, but the metal-can-of-tuna-in-the-microwave gag alternately makes me giggle and blanch).
Clickbait also gets more ambitious than the typical parser debut by having a robustly-implemented camera. You only have a limited number of shots, and you can photograph just about anything you choose; there are a few places where you’re prompted to take a picture to reveal a clue that for whatever reason isn’t visible to the naked eye, but for the most part, you can let the spirit guide you. I had a taste for portraits and urban-decay pictures of graffiti, but it feels like there’s a reasonable amount of room for player expression (now I’m wondering about doing a series on the color-coded doors). While your choice of candids can’t lead you to fail the game, the ending does evaluate your pics, spitting out a customized blurb for each and scoring you based on how well you realized the contest’s theme. It’s a fun way of giving the player more agency while navigating the often-linear process of solving text adventure puzzles, so I’m all for the experiment.
So given the promise on display, it would be churlish to harp on some of the rough edges in Clickbait’s implementation – I’m attaching my transcript since I do think it’s worth figuring out how to smooth them out for next time, but I very much hope there’ll be a next time.
clickbait mr.txt (151.9 KB)
5 Likes
Let Me Play!, by Interactive Dreams
When I was in law school, one of my favorite classes was a law and philosophy course that went into some of the dominant schools of thought about what law is and how it should be understood: I don’t mean bunkum like “originalism”, but actual philosophies like legal realism (law doesn’t exist as an abstract set of rules but rather is an expression of social interests and public policy) or legal positivism (law doesn’t gain its validity by expressing moral truths, but simply because it has the weight of the sovereign behind it). Our professor, being something of a Marxist, also had us read some Thorstein Veblen. As someone whose undergraduate major was astrophysics and had gotten through a smattering of Sartre and Foucault and not much else, this was fun stuff – but one day, as I was gushing excitedly to one of my fellow students about how much I was getting out of the class, they stifled a yawn: they were a poli-sci/English double major and been doing theory stuff like this since sophomore year, so most of what we were going over was old hat.
This is my attempt to be charitable and acknowledge that no audience is a monolith, players come from a broad variety of experiences and perspectives, and ideas that come off as stale to one person can easily be a breath of fresh air to another. So when I say that it feels like Let Me Play! is aimed at someone who was super impressed by the twist in Bioshock, and then fell into a coma for almost 20 years, I’m aware that’s an unfair judgment: I’m sure there are some players somewhere who’ll find its dramatization of the paradoxes of player agency to have some heft. But even they, I’d wager, would find its glacial pacing intensely frustrating: say what you will about Uninteractive Fiction 2, at least it respects its players’ time.
LMP is presented as a sort of visual novel: there are attractive pixel graphics dramatizing the story, which is draped in theatrical trappings. Act I, Scene I sees a man and a woman collide on their way into an elevator; as it turns out, this isn’t so much a meet-cute as a meet-awkward, as the woman is on her way up to her office to be fired from a job the man is applying for. Inevitably, the elevator breaks, stranding them, allowing them space to express their feelings, reveal some low-key secrets, and bond over their shared desire to escape the corporate grind and be actors.
When laid out in summary form, that sounds like a reasonable enough topic for a game, but sadly, that’s not what Let Me Play! is about. You see, while the scene occasionally stops to present you with a trio of dialogue options for both the man and the woman, your input is never registered – the hand cursor glides between the choices before finally setting on a pre-ordained outcome that allows the scene to continue. Yes, the ability of players to influence the narrative is what LMP is actually concerned with, in a story that gets increasingly heavy-handed as it goes – and gets increasingly snail-like, too. It doesn’t take long before almost every interaction requires a choice, and that whole hand-gliding-around rigmarole takes five or six seconds each time, and the text slowly prints to the screen character by character – but doesn’t pause when it finishes a line, meaning that the poor player is constantly caught on the horns of a dilemma: do you just sit there waiting for the text to update, feeling the minutes of your life slip away like sand through the hourglass, or do you alt-tab away or mess around with your phone and miss what’s actually being said?
This conflict is way more exciting than anything that actually happens in LMP. Every once in a while a special icon pops up, and if you click on that, you can eventually get into some more fourth-wall breaking scenes where the director gets involved in arguing with you about whether this is a play or a game, and every once in a while you’re actually given the opportunity to make some choices. But it’s all pretty bone-dry, going to exactly the places you’d imagine, without any characters or theme or anything specific to establish stakes or a reason to care about these arid pronouncements about what players can, or should, alter in an interactive narrative. It seems aimed at a video-game culture centered on player entitlement, which circa 2012 amid the Mass Effect 3 ending-rewriting controversy and the first stirrings of Gamergate might have felt somewhat on point; entered into an IF contest in 2025, it feels like Rip Van Winkle. And again, the delivery mechanism is more drawn-out than you can imagine – god help me, I went through the game without clicking on the icon to see what happens if you just let things play out, and it’s both uninspiring and excruciating. Of course I’m sure this is part of how the game is dramatizing the unpleasantness of being denied agency, but there are other ways to make withholding more engaging (come back Violent Delight, all is forgiven!) I don’t mind seeing an old argument re-presented, and for a player who hasn’t considered any of these ideas before it could be a gateway into a rich vein of theory and criticism, but I felt like LMP didn’t have much to say to me, and was in no hurry at all to say it.
6 Likes
Thank you for your insightful review Mike!
Now I wonder what I should do with my “Mike the Tax Man” NPC in my WIP…
3 Likes
Thank you very much for that honest review. Regarding the ability of being able to pass through the dialogues more quickly, it’s a place I debated constantly about what to do, due to the intentions behind. Will surely make some adjustments down the line 
2 Likes
Operative Nine, by Arthur DiBianca
I’m continually amazed by how Arthur DiBianca is able to write at least one or two highly-polished games a year working in an identifiable niche – limited-parser puzzle games that each boast a distinctive hook – while so rarely feeling like he’s repeating himself. Operative Nine fits comfortably into that tradition, with all the pieces of the classic setup: there’s a light cyber-espionage theme, as this time you’re tasked with breaking into an enemy base to run the table on spy-game shenanigans by swapping dossiers, bugging meeting rooms, putting knockout-gas in the ventilation system, and taking pictures of secret documents with a camera mocked up to look like a pack of cigarettes. But in an extreme approach to the limited-parser aesthetic, pretty much all of that rigmarole takes care of itself if you make it into the appropriate room and examine the relevant bit of scenery: besides compass navigation and good ol’ X [WHATEVER], there’s only one command needed, the almighty LINK, which enables you to deploy your cutting-edge microcomputer to hack into enemy systems.
Now, there’s a long tradition of hacking minigames in video games, so when I finished the intro and started to get to grips with the mission, I couldn’t help speculating about what form these hacking puzzles would take: something verisimilitudinous, like Upling’s command-line interface? A lightly-reskinned version of regular parser gameplay, where locked doors are renamed secure nodes and keys renamed encryption crackers? Number puzzles or letter puzzles? Or maybe something game-ier, like Minesweeper or the Pipe-Mania one they had in Bioshock?
My feelings upon realizing yeah, it’s the last one, and actually, it’s Sokoban, were profoundly mixed. On the one hand, the absurdity of having a po-faced espionage thriller depend on repeated bouts of box-pushing is pretty great, but on the other, Sokoban is one of the classic puzzle frameworks that I personally don’t enjoy. I have a hard time articulating what it is about it that rubs me the wrong way – possibly that it feels very laborious, where you can figure out the answer but still need to spend a long time implementing the solution, with one wrong move requiring a restart? Or maybe it’s just that it always feels stressful to me, since the puzzles require imposing a sense of constraint and hemming in the player with frequent dead ends?
Operative Nine does cater to people with my hesitance about these kinds of puzzles, though, because while I feared I’d wind up having to bang my head against a series of increasingly-fiendish box-mazes, actually the Sokoban structure is used as the jumping-off point for a series of variations and provocations, taking the basic grammar of moving around some at signs to push some hash signs and going all sort of directions with it. Like, there are a couple that just require getting boxes out of the way or pushing them onto pressure plates, but very quickly that becomes the exception: there’s a factory level where you need to move the boxes around by judiciously activating levers that bump them from one conveyer belt to another, and a stealth level that involves hiding from “cameras”. Unsurprisingly, the implementation here is very impressive: there’s a box that’s always displayed on the right half of the screen, and when you activate the LINK command, the puzzle pops up in the box, not interrupting the thread of the story. Arrow keys and WASD move you around, and the controls are quite responsive. There are a couple of wrinkles that make life harder than it could otherwise be – notably, you can’t undo a move, and everything is doubled – like, the player is depicted as “@@” while the boxes are “##”. I assume this is done to make the aspect ratio more readable, but I found this last choice sometimes made it hard to count spaces and keep track of exactly where I was.
And that was a problem because there are some extraordinarily fiddly puzzles here where you do need to count your steps, and feed in an extended series of commands without the slightest mistake. The worst offender here is probably the dark puzzles, where you’re given a view of the level before it’s blocked off, and you need to navigate it blind – I got through the first three of these with only a modicum of difficulty, before giving up on the last one, which required me to squint at a bunch of whitespace to try to estimate whether I needed to go six steps to the right or seven… Enough trial and error would have got me through, but I confess I went to the walkthrough to key in the appropriate sequence – and that was the case for two or three other puzzles as well, where I felt like the effort of getting the solution exactly right was going to be so much busywork once I’d basically figured out what a puzzle was doing.
That’s not a great ratio for a game that just has about a dozen main puzzles, but admittedly, I’m pretty sure a good chunk of my impatience was just my native antsiness at Sokoban rearing its ugly head – for someone who likes this kind of thing, getting a meaty conundrum requiring an extended series of precise movements executed perfectly might be heaven itself (…do surgeons like Sokoban, I wonder) And there really are some lovely highlights that are more exploratory than anything else – I don’t want to spoil the best bits, but I’ll just say there’s an RPG-inspired puzzle that put a smile on my face the whole time.
So mileage can definitely vary, and even for the Sokoban-averse it’s very possible to have a good time here, especially if you’re not averse to using the walkthrough. I do think there are some elements here that make Operative Nine unlikely to rise to the top of the DiBianca pantheon, though: for one thing, the fact that the gameplay is entirely based on the minigames means that the puzzles are almost all self-contained, so it can feel more like an anthology than a single cohesive hole. For another, there’s no postgame or “advanced” puzzles, at least as far as I could see, which often adds an extra element of fun. But even a relatively-straightforward DiBianca game, focusing on a puzzle system I don’t get on with, is hard to have too bad a time with; it showed me some cool stuff, had impeccable implementation, and was zippy enough not to overstay its welcome.
6 Likes
By All Reasonable Knowledge, by BMB Johnson
Context, they say, is king, and here is proof number nine hundred: I enjoy testing IF, and will gladly spend hours cataloging typos, brainstorming ways to improve a puzzle’s clueing, messing around with the parser to try to catch the world-model out, and otherwise cheerfully folding, spindling, and mutilating a buggy, incomplete mess of a game. And to be clear I don’t just mean that I like to do it because it’s a useful task for the community, or that I just like to feel helpful – though both of those are true – but that actually, the process itself is fun for me. It’s almost like a meta-puzzle: using your knowledge of writing and coding, how thoroughly can you break and reconstruct a game?
Yet while my playthrough of By All Reasonable Knowledge involved finding a lot of typos, noting inadequate clueing, and manipulating the parser to get around its inability to understand reasonable commands, I was not having fun. Because yeah, when an author has asked you to do that, it feels different from when they force you to do that.
This is all leading up to the reveal that BARK (we’ll circle back to the pun) doesn’t have any testers listed in the credits, and boy does it show. This is a one-room Inform game with a bunch of different bits of furniture, fixtures, and scenery, but LOOK just tells you “You are in a dingy bedroom”, so you constantly need to scroll back to the top of the transcript to review the paragraphs-long description of what’s actually there. There’s a night light you need to grab, but you can’t because despite how the game writes it it’s actually implemented as a nightlight (holding the thing also enables you to unlock a container by trying to open it, with no clue or other indication about this entirely nonstandard interaction so far as I could tell). State-changing actions are inconsistently implemented (there’s a window that kept saying it was closed even after I’d opened it), the grammar for the HELP command is so abstruse I never figured out which prepositions are required (fortunately you can just type HELP and then the name of an object at the disambiguation prompt, which works like half the time), and of course there’s an object where the intuitive command for using it gives a useless, default response, because in that one case you’re supposed to guess that USE is the right command.
Oh yeah, and for a game called BARK, where the blurb tells you the inciting incident is barking dog keeping you awake, and where you can call no less than three hired guns to try to get them to kiss said dog to get it to cease its barking, it sure is surprising that I never heard a single soft arf in my playthrough.
Adding insult to injury, the game seems determined to take its shortcomings out on its players. If you exhaust the hints available for a particular object, you get told “Maybe interactive games are too difficult for you. I’m sure there’s a pinball table in a bar you might be better at,” which I confess made me annoyed – baby, let me assure you, it’s not me, it’s you. That snark is also of a piece with BARK’s edgy, incoherent tone: for all that the setup screams “zany parser game”, you’re treated to a series of flashbacks that attempt to situate things in a social realist mode, creating a bathetic contrast that goes about as well as you’d expect. And although I don’t think you can successfully kill the dog, as the assassination attempts seemed to rebound on me, it’s still a kind of gross thing to push the player to try (I tried to call in a hit just because I dialed a context-free – there’s that word again – number that I was told I’d memorized, with no indication of who was on the other end).
In the game’s defense, there is a FUCK TRUMP Easter egg, and I don’t think the idea of contrasting silly-puzzle solving with downbeat domestic drama is inherently bad, though it’s not well-realized here (and it’s especially not well-served by the “wacky” plastic-looking genAI art of the cover). But playing BARK is still exhausting, far more work than entertainment and with no indication that the author’s going to make updates based on feedback, continuing to slog away at it was hard to justify – so when I got to a point where I knew exactly what I was supposed to do, and confirmed my understanding was right via the hint function, but wasn’t able to actually do the thing due to the syntax’s failure to explain itself or accept reasonable alternatives that had worked in other similar situations the game presented ([spoiler]I was trying to CLEAN CLOCK WITH SCREWDRIVER[/spoiler), I decided to call that good. I am curious how the various plot threads in BARK might eventually come together, but this one needs a lot more polishing – and testing – before it can fairly ask a player to give it a go.
BARK mr.txt (38.9 KB)
5 Likes
Temptation in the Village, by Anssi Räisänen
I don’t mean to be controversial here, but I’m going to go ahead and say it: Kafka was a great author. Oh, I know some might disagree – including the man himself, who famously wanted all his writing to be burned after his death – but for all that he’s not great at interiority and he’s better at situations than plot, he sure nailed the 20th century. But beyond his ideas (bureaucracy, alienation, the absurd), he sure could sling a sentence even when working in a more mundane register. Temptation in the Village is an interactive rendering of one of his fragments, and where the game sticks close to his prose, there’s something about it that makes me squirm in my seat with glee:
One summer, as evening falls, you arrive in a village you’ve never been to before. You’re struck by how broad and open the roads are. Tall, old trees stand in front of the farmhouses. It has been raining recently, the air is fresh, everything delights you. You try to convey this in the way you greet the people standing at the gates; their replies are friendly, though a little reserved.
I can’t easily articulate why this delights me, but it does: the simple words, the emotional immediacy, the accumulation of simple clauses creating a momentum belied by the fact that nothing in particular is happening, the small note of unease at the end… Sure, this borders on the pastoral, but when we get down to the grubby business of human interaction, the distinctively Kafkaesque note begins to emerge. For example, after you decide to take lodgings in the village and bandy some words with a curiously-hostile passerby, a supercilious young man pops atop a wall to tell you you can stay at a farmhouse:
“That’s right,” he replies, with the same arrogance in his reply that there is in all his behavior. He sits above like a master, you stand down below like a petty servant; you have a great desire to stir him up a little by whirling a stone at him.
“Beds for the night are furnished here, not to everyone, but only to those to whom they are offered,” the young man continues.
The near-tautology at the end: lovely.
The gameplay here is pretty minimal – just moving about the map and taking simple actions (talking, sleeping) according to the game’s prompts, which lend a minimal interactivity to the fragment. Sometimes the suggestions can get pretty bald, telling you exactly what the protagonist is feeling and what you should do next, and while these can feel intrusive, I think that’s forgivable due the exigencies of adaptation, especially of a piece so light on plot as this: without clear narrative stakes or character goals to structure things, a heavier authorial hand helps the player avoid flailing.
The trouble is that this is just a fragment, and the author’s given in to the temptation to finish it. It’s hopefully no major critique to note that the writing in this section isn’t as good as Kafka’s, and both the plot and the structure open up a bit: the bit Kafka wrote breaks off after the protagonist experiences an odd incident upon awakening in the farmhouse in the middle of the night, but from there the game’s narrative has you deciding to work as a farmhand for a while, which requires you to perform some chores to prove that you’re up to the task. This involves some satisfying but very typical parser-puzzle business – you need to oil a rusty wheel, things of that nature – and while there’s a consistent undercurrent suggesting that things aren’t right, this comes across more as the locals playing a practical joke on an outsider, which doesn’t contrast well with the more uncanny, slightly-off vibe of the first half. And then the ending strikes the least Kafkaesque note I can imagine:
But even in this desolate moment, you know that one day you will find a place that truly belongs to you, no matter what it takes - and it will be somewhere entirely different from here.
Still, a too-pat finale can’t negate how engaging I found the first part of the piece; I do wish the author had been more willing to let narrative uncertainty lie and end the game the same place Kafka did, but that’s not because the second half is bad, just comparatively banal. And heck, compared to the various forgettable-at-best attempts at adding closure to incomplete narratives – stabs at solving the Mystery of Edwin Drood or bringing Sanditon in for a landing or the last seasons of Game of Thrones – it could have been a lot worse.
3 Likes
valley of glass, by Devan Wardrop-Saxton
On thing that I never fully appreciated until I started writing some of my own fiction is just how full of holes most narratives are. I don’t mean inconsistencies in the plot or anything like that – just gaps, elisions, places where the story skips through some dull bits. They seem simple enough when you’re reading, but when you’re in the author’s seat, I found it was very easy to get sucked into the momentum of narrating everything that happened to my characters: if I said they went out their front door, well it just stood to reason I’d need to relate what they saw on the other side, then which direction they turned when they finished walking down the driveway, and then whether they had to wait for the stop-light to cross the street… internalizing that you can (and should!) segue into the next place where something interesting happens, trusting that the reader will follow, can be deceptively hard, especially when the next sentence isn’t “when X arrived at school…” but “the next day…” or “by the time Summer Break was over”, much less, as in the case of the fairy tale on which valley of glass riffs, “seven years later…”
The game doesn’t attempt to tell the full story of that fairy tale, or even an incomplete slice of it – instead, it lives entirely in the gap. I had vague memories of the Black Bull of Norroway, which is name-checked in the blurb, but had recourse to Wikipedia to fill in the details, and it sure is a fairy tale: there are three daughters who go off on three separate journeys, a youngest daughter who travels alongside a black bull and is gifted three miraculous fruits, a seemingly-simple instruction that’s accidentally violated to supernaturally-catastrophic effect, and then transformations, setbacks, a trilogy of bribes, and true love winning out in the end. There’s a bit too much business, a bit too little thematic resonance, for Disney to be adapting this anytime soon, but it’s an enjoyable example of the form, and valley of glass zeroes in on one particular lacuna in the narrative: after the youngest daughter inadvertently disobeys the bull which is her polymorphed love, she’s abandoned in the eponymous dale and forced to work for a blacksmith for seven years, at which point he promises to make her iron shoes that will allow her to climb the slippery slopes and make her rendezvous with destiny.
The game doesn’t give you the full context for why you’re here, or where you’re headed after your labors have finished – I’m not sure because the author assumed the audience would know the story (debatable, I think, at least in the US) or if being enigmatic was an intended part of the vibe. I will say I’m glad I looked up the story, since it enabled me to appreciate some details that initially left me nonplussed, like the fact that the aforementioned fruits start out in your inventory. Honestly, even with that background, the game is pretty slight: it just depicts you remembering how you came to the valley and then turning back to the forge to keep up your labors, hoping one day to escape. The writing is evocative, but there isn’t much in the way of interactivity:
It is early spring in the valley of glass, the first of the seven years you promised to the village blacksmith. Your breath clouds in the crisp morning air as you walk the North Road, your borrowed coat wrapped tight against the chill.
(That last line is unchanged even if you remove the coat).
Pretty much all the player can do is explore off the road, which triggers the aforementioned non-interactive memories. The fantastical nature of the landscape isn’t especially harped on in these sequences, and while I typically like understatement, in a piece this short (it took me less than ten minutes to play through) I think going bigger would have helped it make more of an impression. Similarly, if you’ve read the story, there are some things you can do that would eventually change the outcome (breaking open the fruits so the daughter can’t use the gems within as a bribe) but the game can’t really acknowledge that, since its horizon closes well before the next bit of the fair tale’s plot picks up. This makes for a game that’s pleasant enough while it lasts, but almost militantly low-key in its refusal to offer challenges, choices, or consequences, and even the mood it evokes is rather restrained. It’d be churlish to suggest that the fairy tale skips over this bit for a reason, but I did find myself wishing the author had communicated a clearer rationale for why this particular bit of the story was worth spending time on, besides the aforementioned narrative-autopilot I had running as a novice author.
valley mr.txt (13.6 KB)
6 Likes
One Step Ahead, by Zuo Lifan
Probably the most interesting thing about the rise of LLMs (a low bar) is that it’s given us a new AI story. When I was growing up, there were just two: Pinocchio, and 2001. That is, either the story was going to be about whether or not an artificial consciousness could be “real” (so Data from Star Trek, Richard Powers’ Galatea 2.2, Spielberg’s Kubrick’s A.I.), or about whether the robots were going to destroy their creators (Terminator, The Matrix… heck, this trope goes all the way back to R.U.R.) But now there’s a third story, reflecting the anxieties brought on by generative AI: maybe the machines won’t live alongside us, or violently overthrow us, but instead simply supplant us, doing all the work and making all our decisions until we’re superfluous.
One Step Ahead’s implementation isn’t especially impressive – presentation-wise, this is bare-bones Harlowe, and the writing is marred by plenty of typos and infelicities – but when it sticks to telling this new story, it managed to sustain my attention as the protagonist, worn down by the demands of classwork and decision fatigue, slowly cedes more and more of their agency to an LLM. Soon it’s doing their homework, deciding on their meal plans, and shouldering them out of their life. There’s not much characterization or specificity, and the use of interactivity is rather blunt (you can either give into temptation and use the AI – or you can choose not to, which swiftly ends the game without anything by way of denouement), but hey, who doesn’t want to see Faust get his comeuppance?
The trouble is, in the third act of its short runtime, the game swerves back into one of the old narratives, specifically the oh-no-AI-will-kill-us-all one. You have a moment of clarity and try to delete or at least step back from using it, before it’s inevitably reinstalled and punishes you for your disobedience. Narratively, this isn’t especially convincing – the details on how all this is happening are vague, beyond red angry-text being displayed at odd angles. And thematically, it’s a muddle: what’s terrifying about being replaced by an LLM is specifically that it doesn’t have any agency, we’re just making ourselves obsolete through sheer lack of character, or having it imposed on us from above by rapacious bosses. Killer robots reflect a capitalist’s guilty conscience at the oppression of the proletariat, so bringing this note into the mix adds nothing but discordance – it’s a plot twist for the sake of a plot twist, an escalation for the sake of an escalation. And since, unfortunately, there’s not much here beyond the very basic skeleton of a narrative, when that goes off the rails there’s similarly not much left for One Step Ahead to fall back on.
6 Likes
You Cannot Speak, by Ted Tarnovski
I’ll give credit to You Cannot Speak for an interesting opening – sudden-onset aphasia, intrigue on a Martian colony, and sleep paralysis are an unlikely set of themes to throw into the blender, but you can see how they’d connect up: they all have to do with isolation, alienation, and a lack of agency. The game’s protagonist seems well-fitted to explore this mélange of concepts, too, as she’s fleeing some entanglements on Earth and clearly has cut herself off from her history: upon waking from the aforementioned hag-dream, instead of immediately jumping into your daily routine you can choose to sit for a while and reflect on your past, which involves a premonitory warning that “sometimes it’s better not to ruminate”, and you gate off a detailed description of something that went wrong for you with a simple “you don’t like think about it.”
Unfortunately none of this is paid off in any way: the game as entered into the Comp is a short demo, comprising maybe the first ten minutes of what’s clearly a larger story (part 2 is plugged in the ending). Besides the ominous opening and the vague backstory, you can take a (deeply unpleasant) shower, check out your few belongings, and then get a strange warning from someone lurking outside your quarters. It’s hard not to be a bit frustrated, because this is in no way a complete experience. There have been other part ones entered into this year’s Comp, of course, but Pure and Warrior-Poet are both notably longer and more robust in both gameplay and narrative terms; they reach climaxes at the end, even if there’s clearly more story to go before everything is resolved. You Cannot Speak has none of that, and it doesn’t even elaborate its themes sufficiently to create a hook – sure, there’s the mystery of why the protagonist can’t, well, speak, but this is just an out-of-context mystery, without any potential explanations or avenues of investigation on offer, so it winds up feeling disconnected from the actual gameplay on offer, which again is mostly just twiddling around in a minimally-furnished space cabin.
The prose, meanwhile, is fine (there’s a line about how the TV-picture you’ve got instead of an actual window shows a “canyon [of] breathtaking natural beauty, with all the timeless qualities of a MacOS desktop image”, which I think is good assuming that I’m right that it’s meant satirically) but it’s not especially flashy. So while sure, I’d keep playing based on these first ten minutes, I can’t say that’s because I found a compelling reason to continue as much as that I didn’t find anything sufficiently off-putting to drive me away. And if the plan is to release the second installment in next year’s Comp, I’m pretty sure I’d have to replay this opening in its entirety to remember what happened – to be honest, I’ve already kinda forgotten what the deal is with the protagonist’s sister, and what the guy lurking outside the door said that was creepy – which isn’t a problem I’d have with Pure or Warrior-Poet. Inasmuch as it’s a teaser, You Cannot Speak probably could have stood to be more of a tease.
4 Likes
The Olive Tree, by Francesco Giovannangelo
The Aristotelian Unities aren’t held in especially high regard these days as a theoretical framework for drama – admittedly for good reason, heck, they don’t even have much to do with Aristotle – and of course they’re a poorer fit for IF, but there’s still something to the idea that there’s power in focus: if a story is restricted to a single place, a single significant action, and a single, compressed time period, it’s harder for your effort to be diffused. The Olive Tree does quite well on the first two criteria, as its view is restricted to one olive tree growing on Palestinian land and what happens when it gives fruit, but it’s much more expansive than the theory would prescribe, with story beginning in the Mandate era and concluding in the modern day. I’m no stickler for classical formulas, but I do think this massive sweep of history means this short, relatively simple game bites off more than it can chew.
Structurally, the game is arranged in a seasonal progression, with short narrative vignettes bookending repeated gameplay segments where you shepherd the tree’s growth. The story is sadly a predictable one drawn from plenty of real life examples: a Palestinian family plants and nurtures the tree over decades, passing the responsibility of tending to the grove through the generations, until Israeli settlers begin imposing checkpoints and other restrictions in an attempt to seize the land, with everything culminating in shocking but by no means surprising brutality. The narrative mostly plays out through dialogue, and we only experience short scenes that the tree witnesses, which means the player can wind up skipping through time at a dizzying rate, with only a few moves advancing the clock by a decade. That’s all well and good for modeling how a tree experiences time, I suppose, but this does mean there isn’t much room for characters to breathe; we get a few paragraphs with the patriarch as a young man, then a few more once he’s old helping his daughter learn how to tent to the trees, then a few more after she in turn grows older and becomes a parent. Necessarily, this means that the narrative and emotional dynamics can feel overly bottom-lined:
“Dad, has this been pruned already?”
“Of course, can’t you tell? When I planted this olive tree, the first one in the Garden, I was younger than you are now. And you don’t even understand what you’re looking at… You’d better learn, since you’re the only one left.”
“I’m only sixteen. I’ll learn.”
The ending does have punch, but that impact was blunted because I could see it coming more or less from the beginning, and the absence of texture meant the characters and other incidents of plot came across more as mechanisms to get to that ending, than endowed with substance or the patina of reality in their own right.
In an interesting choice, all these narrative elements are entirely non-interactive, running as glorified cutscenes at specified moments. And while “Unity of Gameplay” is of course not one of the classical unities – even accounting for the fact that they were invented in the 16th Century rather than antiquity, video games were uh still not that advanced – Olive Tree wobbles a bit when it comes to how well the story and themes cohere with what the player actually does. It’s a limited parser game where the commands available to you allow you to manage the tree’s resources – you can absorb water, grow leaves to absorb more light energy, bloom, and fruit. You have always-visible water and light counters (they run on a scale up to 100), and anything besides absorbing water costs it, so a typical gameplay loop involves typing WATER once or TWICE, then maybe LEAVES, then WATER again, to keep your counters out of the red, and make the perennially-decrementing GROWTH statistic from reaching zero – which ends the game in failure.
As a simulation, this gameplay system obviously is fairly abstract, though it does dramatize how challenging survival can be in this environment. But the difficulty is tuned rather harshly, as trying to grow too soon feels like it can put you on a no-win path, and even trying to use the EXAMINE command or otherwise engage with the story makes time pass, bringing you ever-closer to death. In fact I found my first couple of playthroughs rather frantic, with my attempts at spinning plates ending in consistent failure. On subsequent runs I realized that there’s an intended rhythm to prioritizing water vs. light and choosing when to push to generate flowers or olives, but it feels very mechanical (aren’t trees doing all of these things at once, rather than choosing which to prioritize in any given period?); meanwhile, multiple restarts made the story bits fade from repetition, and the juxtaposition of the slow-paced generational saga with my desperate mathematics further took me out of the game.
There are good ideas here, and some good writing too, but at the end of the day the Olive Tree lacks the coherence needed to be great: writing from an olive tree’s point of view across the better part of a century I think demands pacing as unhurried as its growth from seed to sapling to tree, characters as deep as its roots, writing as tart as its fruit, and gameplay as contemplative as the rustle of wind through its leaves. I admire the game’s earnestness and inventiveness, but can only wish it had more focus.
5 Likes
This was one of Ray Bradbury’s main things, wasn’t it? Fahrenheit 451 and The Veldt especially, though about technology in general rather than AI specifically. To be fair, he did it really well no matter how many times he did it.
2 Likes
A Day in a Hell Corp, by Hex
It’s a sign that a writer has reached their decadent phase when they turn their critical eye upon themselves and begin to obsess over their process, but I am feeling stymied about how to start my review of A Day in a Hell Corp and the only way I can think of to break through the logjam is to let you behind the curtain a little bit. See, typically my reviewing is two or three days ahead of my playing, which is an important part of how I’m usually able to get through the Comp: between work, taking care of my kid, various chores and errands, and maintaining some minimum of a social life, and cramming 85 games into 45 days, I need to maximize the efficiency of the hour and a half to two hours a night when I can actually sit down and write reviews. And that time lag is a big piece of that, since as I’m doing the laundry or cooking or taking a couple minute break between meetings, my impressions of a game are marinating in the back of my brain, and I can mentally workshop different angles to takes, these to propound, gimmicky intros to use as a way into talking about the game, so by the time I’m in front of the keyboard I can just go without needing too much in the way of anticipatory throat-clearing.
The previous 250ish words, though, are of course anticipatory throat-clearing of the lowest order: pure waffle, the kind of tap-dancing that a sophomore bangs out to bulk out their two-and-a-half-page essay to the requisite three-page mark, valuable only to the extent that they gift an editor a moment of satisfaction as they drag their red pen across in a diagonal slash. And yet, despite my method theoretically safeguarding against such a result, here we are. Why? Well, for one thing, I don’t actually have an editor, but the main reason is that every time I’ve tried to think about A Day in Hell Corp over the last couple of days, I’m overcome by a wave of irritation that renders analysis untenable.
It’s not that its bones are irreducibly awful. What we’ve got here is an old-fashioned Twine game with puzzles, but none of the systems that edge a choice-based game into the “parser-like” category – I suppose there’s a vestigial inventory, but there are only a couple of different items you can pick up, and they automatically enable a choice to use them when appropriate, so that hardly counts. Similarly, there’s a bit of navigation, but the map is simple and there’s not any need to retrace your steps after you’ve cleared each small region. So basically you just wind up going from room to room, clicking through all the links, then circling back once you hit the end to see what’s changed based on your first round of clicking – the puzzles all solve themselves through lawnmowering, so no actual thought is required; it’s not especially satisfying but this can be a brainlessly pleasant structure upon which to hang a story, so like I said, not irreducibly awful.
The same goes for the story, I suppose, though its margin of grace is much narrower. You play a middle-manager demon eager to win a competition whose prize is a celestial vacation, and as a result you have to review the torments of the souls under your care to find ways to dial their suffering up to 11 (a running subplot is the way you screw over, and are screwed over in turn by, your coworkers – it’s an imp eat imp world out there). This is rather broad as workplace satires go, and the gender politics are gross (female demons are either super hot or grotesque, and none of them are smart), but again, a good writer could do something with this setup.
The issue though is that we are not dealing with the work of a good writer, or at least one whose style is to my taste. In fact, I kind of hope that an LLM was used to generate some of this prose (though let me be clear that there’s no disclosure to that effect), because the alternative – that a human being wrote all this – is depressing to contemplate:
Whoa, in that orc infirmary, those alembics and potions, they’re one crazy, funny mess!
Alembics: All scattered on the shelves, these alembics got wild shapes, like glass giraffes or hunchback witches. They’re bubbling and gurgling, with colorful smoke and funny sounds, like whistles and burps. Some of the stoppers pop off like champagne, making it even wilder.
Potions: The potions, in bottles all shapes and sizes, colors like rainbows and glowing. Labels all scribbled and unreadable, like spider tracks, and the effects are crazy, like laughing fits or turning into dancing pumpkins. It’s a real hoot!
The whole game is like this, every interaction exaggerated into zaniness, visible flop-sweat coming off of the text as it tries to convince you how crazy and over the top the mild humor is:
The moment you grab that hammer and smack the alarm clock, everything goes kaboom in a total mess. But the alarm clock? It’s still there, perfectly fine, like nothing ever happened. Oh, the irony! And just then, the hellish door opens up, ready to take you to work. Good day, huh?
Or:
Orc nurses run back and forth, tripping over their own feet, while screaming patients are carried on creaking stretchers. An atmosphere of total disorder, where every step is an adventure into the bizarre.
Or:
So, our antihero, with a clumsy leap, jumps onto the table. First move? Epic fail, the gum falls and sticks to his tail. Second try? Even worse, he ends up with a foot in a bucket some jerk angel left there, now all rusty—real funny, guys.
It’s exhausting, sucking all the energy out of even the slightly-better gags; I didn’t think you could make whale laxatives enervating, but the game accomplishes it. There’s no sense of pacing, no quieter bits allowing for escalation into comic chaos, just increasingly-incoherent noise wearing down my rational faculties. Heck, there’s one late-game puzzle involving a union rep and some misers that I still don’t fully understand, since the dialogue felt like it was fed into a make-snarkier filter over and over again until the original meaning had long since fled. Perhaps there are people who do find this stuff funny – I’ll confess that maybe I’d have been among them when I was twelve – but these days I find comedy needs some sense of restraint in order to land. Here in IF land, it’s not the mind, but writing, that can make a heaven of hell and a hell of heaven; that’s certainly the case here.
6 Likes
The Little Four, by Captain Arthur Hastings, O.B.E.
I think a lot about The Sorrows of Young Werther.
Let me rephrase: relative to most Americans born in 1980, I think a lot about the Sorrows of Young Werther, not so much for the novel’s literary qualities – though it did kick-start the Romantic movement and has some good set-pieces – as for its social impact. The thing about this book is that it was huge, and not in a normal way: “Werther fever” had masses of people over-identifying with the main character, reading the story in paroxysms of emotion, dressing up like him, and even, allegedly, killing themselves to escape their romantic travails, just as he does in the book.
Which is to say that parasocial relationships with literary characters may technically be a modern phenomenon, by virtue of the fact that 1774 is after when many consider the early-modern era to have ended, but they nonetheless have a history that long predates social media (so does cosplay!) And while Werther is obviously a poor choice of role model, I don’t think it’s the case that these kinds of feelings are necessarily bad when kept to a proper proportion: my wife is a big fan of Wodehouse’s Jeeves and Wooster stories, and cried happy tears when she read an estate-approved novel that capped off their narratives by marrying them off. When you come to know a character by reading about them, you really do feel for them, and want good things to happen to them, at least once the adventures that provide you with so much excitement are through.
This is exactly what the Little Four is up to. This low-key parser mystery brings Hercule Poirot and his Watsonian sidekick, Captain Hastings – both the protagonist and the putative author – into a domestic menage: after the death of Hastings’ wife, he’s moved his four children into the flat below Poirot’s, while he himself takes the great detective’s guest bedroom (one does not need to look far to find queer subtext). The kids play games, Poirot’s mostly retired and alternates phone consultations with the Yard with cooking meals for the extended family, and Hastings’ greatest obstacle is taking the dog out for a walk on a rainy day.
One of the great powers of parser games is to evoke a place, and the apartments here are nicely drawn and cleanly implemented; they’re substantial without feeling too big, and contain a generous portion of lovingly-described mementos and Christie references without being overstuffed (the robust feelies, which in addition to instructions on commands and a spoiler-y walkthrough also include a map, help make things feel even more manageable). While I’ve not read the original books so can’t directly compare the prose, the writing here is very good, conveying sensory impressions and character details while maintaining a post-Edwardian crispness. Here for example is X SLIPPERS:
Poirot, in his dandyish and self-admiring manner, loved to have his most luxurious personal items inscribed with his elegant monogram of an intertwined H and P. He sometimes wore these dark velvety slippers around the house after his bath, when the day’s schedule allowed him to keep a casual presentation. I confess that the aches of advancing middle age were making me crave comforts that I had scorned as a younger man, and I was tempted to procure some slippers of my own.
This excerpt is typical in centering on Poirot, who is unsurprisingly the main subject of the game: exploring the apartment gives you a sense of the place but more so provides a portrait of its inhabitant, who comes across as charmingly vain but intensely sentimental, doting on Hastings and the children:
I have always known Poirot to be a masterful cook; lately, he had been honing his skills with particular zeal by cooking dinner on most nights, and appeared determined to outdo himself at every opportunity. He was on a mission to render even the most dubious of Belgian dishes somehow palatable to young children. He sometimes spoke fondly of his mother as he explained a recipe’s origins, offering us glimpses into a past which he had been reticent about for as long as I have known him.
I can imagine how much enjoyment a Poirot fan would get from this picture, seeing a beloved character happily at rest. And filling out this picture is mostly what there is to do: you’re set a series of simple chores at the beginning of the game that mostly serve as an excuse to wander around the place checking out the scenery and having short conversations with the rest of the supporting cast, while Poirot remains off-screen. There is an added note of excitement as you head into the endgame, but this is exceedingly modest: Poirot sets a simple test of your deductive prowess, which is solved by doing just what you’ve done for the rest of the game, wandering around and looking at things, which is made easier by the convenient way items you haven’t yet sufficiently examined are printed in bold (after you’ve found everything there is to find, cracking the conundrum does require typing in a culprit for the mischief you’ve uncovered, but this too is exceedingly obvious, and anyway there are no consequences for failure). And then the story draws to a close.
It’s a lovely little thing, but I have to confess that – well, I’m not a Poirot fan. I’ve seen an episode or two of the David Suchet series and one of the Branagh movies, but as I said, I’ve never actually read any of the books, and wasn’t aware there was such a character as Captain Hastings until I checked on Wikipedia to see whether he was the game’s creation or original to Christie. So while I can certainly appreciate the happy ending he’s provided here, I still viewed all this coziness with something of the uncomprehending detachment of someone watching a Wertherite sob over a fictional character’s heartbreak – though unlike in that case, part of me was a little disappointed that nobody got killed, since I do love a murder-mystery. But corpses are a dime a dozen in Poirot’s career; evenings where he’s surrounded by affectionate children and shares a nightcap with a friend, I suspect, are rarer, and even our fictional friends deserve a little peace.
four mr.txt (131.4 KB)
7 Likes
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful review. First of all, I hope your wife has been doing well since that long and stressful night at the ER; I can only imagine how disorienting it must have been to read through The Pilgrim’s Progress under those circumstances. The fact that playing WATT called that memory to mind means a lot to me, and I don’t take the comparison lightly. To me, being placed even faintly in the company of such a text is a praise.
This game was born out of many late nights of maladaptive daydreaming, written from my perspective as a young adult in that nebulous, disorienting stage of life after college, just stepping into full-time work. It’s my attempt to wrestle with absurdist questions I haven’t quite found answers to (not sure if I ever will): How do I live without wasting my life away when it is now just an endless cycle of humdrum work? Those questions sometimes meander into darker territory, but I’ve always found absurdism’s silver lining comforting, that even in a world without clear answers there’s still a reason to keep going. A life filled with regrets is still a life fully lived.
But of course, feel free to push back on that.
With WATT, I wanted to play with the traditional idea of the “grand quest” or the notion of a promised land or salvation. A game not for glory, not to save a princess but to explore what it means to carry on without certainty.
The seven houses, the lighthouses, the strange and abrupt scenes
— these were all built from my own musings, fears, and hopes, refracted through an absurdist lens.
Side note: Ces and I also wondered if WATT might be a wordplay on the existential ‘whats’ people ask themselves when life gets bizarre.
I’m grateful you picked up on the strengths and weaknesses in the different vignettes, and even more grateful that parts of WATT resonated with you despite its imperfections. Like Pilgrim’s Progress, perhaps it’s less about where the story ends and more about the struggles and detours along the way.
2 Likes
Crescent Sea Story, by Stewart C. Baker
The 2023 Comp was notoriously a festival of murder-mysteries and boats, and while we’ve seen our share of the former this year, maritime adventure has been rather thinner on the ground (er). There’s a bit of sea-going amongst the general phantasmagoria of Us Too, and you take ship right at the end of Warrior-Poet, but aside from the inevitable spaceship stuff – which is a different category, to my mind – but that’s pretty much it. So I’m excited that two thirds of the way through the Comp, things are looking up on the boat front! Crescent Sea Story boasts its boatiness in its title, of course, and also offers a lovely watercolor map to trace your progress about its blue-water archipelago.
That’s about the only loveliness to be found, however, since this is a dark story. The protagonist is an amnesiac wizard in a world where people and spirits live in symbiosis – or, as you begin to intuit as you recover your memories, perhaps the relationship is more parasitic than that. As you sail to one island or another, you enter flashbacks that illustrate key moments in your life, jumbled out of order, so beyond the individual challenges in each episode, there’s a metapuzzle of putting them into their proper sequence to suss out who exactly you are, and what you were doing that led you to forget yourself.
This is an engaging structure, and there’s a nice variety to the individual sequences: one starts as a slice of life, with choices primarily keyed to navigating high-school relationship drama, before taking a turn for the macabre, while another sees you performing monotonous task after monotonous task for a sorcerous mentor who seems more focused on getting you to do his chores than teaching you magic. And beyond the shifts in subject matter, the length is also pretty variable, which helps keep things well-paced all the way through to the inevitable climax.
The prose also makes things go down easy. It’s smooth throughout, equally adept at the high-fantasy moments as the quiet, bucolic ones; the style shifts slightly to accommodate these different moods, but not so much as to cause whiplash. I personally like a bit of friction to my writing, especially for fantasy stories, as there are moments when things feel a bit flatter and more contemporary than I’d like – but that’s purely a subjective preference, and the presence of computers and other anachronistic touches indicate that Crescent Sea Stories isn’t actually going for a traditionalist fantasy vibe.
One commonality between the memory-vignettes is that they end with assigning you a character trait, usually based on some climactic choice: the fact that none of these are positive traits (you have your pick of rage, despair, or coldness) is one of many clues that the protagonist’s viewpoint might not be an unbiased one. While your grudge against the gods has its reasons, there are definitely hints that you’ve been shown an incomplete picture – and that regardless of the ends you’ve pursued, the means you’ve employed have put you beyond the moral horizon.
It all makes for a satisfying package, albeit not one without its blemishes. The hardest to ignore of these is the timed text; much of the story requires you to click links to get more text to display, and there’s a noticeable lag before the next paragraphs appear. Meanwhile, choices aren’t offered in list form, but rather via a widget requiring you to click a button to cycle through options, at which point you can click to lock one in. It’s just a little slower and a little fiddlier than you want it to be. Some of the design can exacerbate this sluggishness, especially the training sequence, which has you trudging through a maze and performing repetitive jobs through clicking the same links over and over; it’s thematically appropriate that the protagonist’s impatience would be bubbling over, but I’m not sure the player needed to experience quite so much bleed-through.
These are small quibbles though; Crescent Sea Story is a nicely put-together package, tracking an anti-hero’s journey through engaging reveals and without getting too grimdark. And while the ending shows you triumphant, I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re headed for comeuppance in some sequel or spin-off that delves into the folly of your actions – definitely sign me up for that, especially if there are more boats involved.
5 Likes
INPUT PROCESS, by HY
It’s getting on towards October, so my four-year-old son is enjoy the advent of his favorite holiday. He enjoys everything that makes up the Halloween bundle of spookiness, but some of it is admittedly easier for the toddler brain to assimilate and some is harder. Spiders and skeletons are straightforward enough, and the Count from Sesame Street gives him enough context to understand vampires. But this year he’s been asking a lot of questions about Frankenstein’s monster, which frankly (so to speak) is a bit confusing: I’ve of course been clear that the monster isn’t Frankenstein, but also that Frankenstein is the monster. That is, the point of the story is that the monster is grotesque, but was born innocent, like all children, before turning bad because of how he was treated; the good Doctor, meanwhile, is anything but, and the way he created the monster while rejecting the obligations of parenthood is the motivating crime of the tragedy.
Armed with that understanding, I think he’d be able to make sense of INPUT PROCESS, though I might glide over certain details. Here, you play Frankenstein, and there’s not one but two monsters, both digital creations rather than stitched-together carcasses: the first AI is upbeat and talks like an LLM, while the second is better rounded, and smart enough to ask you some pointed questions about the why (and who) of its creation. This is a game of dialogue, made up nearly entirely of conversations with these two digital avatars, and mostly linear, too, though there are a few choices offered towards the tail end of the game that slot you into one of the several endings. But while the branching may be rather shallow, the presentation takes full advantage of the digital format: the first conversation plays out in a convincing simulation of a terminal (though having a chatbot conversation play out in a DOC prompt, complete with directory path printing out before each bit of user dialogue, is kinda weird), while the second adds graphical elements, notably a yellow eye that’s ready to catch you in an inconsistency.
The first two-thirds of the game play out as a mystery, teasing the question of why the protagonist created the Ais and what secrets she’s keeping from them, but I didn’t find this especially engaging. Beyond the fact that the blurb more or less spills the beans, this is a Frankenstein story, and there’s only one reason a stunted genius tries to create artificial life (well, one and a half if you count hubris). Adding to my impatience for the game to just acknowledge that you’re trying to recreate a lost loved one, duh, is the way it doles out its exposition, which is to say, oh god the timed text. You need to click to get each new paragraph to display, and even once you click the lines fill in letter by letter, making the buildup feel excruciating. I’ll admit that there are a few places where the added drama of delay enhances the narrative, but the omnipresence of this frustrating mechanic is the worst thing about INPUT PROCESS – imagine how much less fun Frankenstein would be if you spent half your time reading it waiting to actually read it!
Fortunately there are some high points too. Beyond the generally lavish production values, the writing is up to the challenge of depicting two different attempts to capture the same character in silicon, with the less-sophisticated iteration sporting noticeable LLM-style tics. The worldbuilding is also nicely shaded in; for plot purposes, all that’s important is that kitbashing AIs is possible but not exactly legal, but there are enough glancing details about the way this cyberpunk-y world works to make it feel lived in. The final segment of the game also is more engaging that what came before – some of this is down to choices finally starting to appear, but it isn’t just a matter of interactivity as such; the last couple of scenes focus more on the emotional dynamics of the situation rather than trying to prolong the aura of mystery, and gain power by that choice. Sure, the protagonist’s psychology here is familiar enough (stop me if you’ve ever read a story about a precocious genius with self-esteem issues who fears getting close to anyone!), but the AI’s reactions are the focus, and lead to an endgame that’s more about feeling out whether a newly-constructed relationship with the protagonist might be plausible or desirable, based on what level of sharing you choose to engage in.
And to the game’s credit, it does allow you to skip to other choice points once you finish the old-fashioned way, which takes much of the sting out of having to face all that timed text a second or, heavens forfend, third time if you want to see how things change in the other endings. All of them are ambiguous to one degree or another since this isn’t a rainbows-and-sunshine kind of game, but they all do open up space for the protagonist and her creations to escape the sort of destructive cycle that consumed Frankenstein and his monster, one way or another, which I suppose can count as hopeful if you catch it in the right kind of light. Of course, in this day and age a story about AI that posits them as specific characters striving to understand humanity, not brainless purveyors of cheerily-delivered slop, feels a bit old fashioned, but as my son’s fascination with Frankenstein indicates, there’s a reason we keep going back to the classics.
6 Likes
That was 2023, wasn’t it?
4 Likes